|
Readers' Bidding Forum
with Fraser Rew, June-August 2014 |
The following comments were
received from the readers of
Australia's national bridge
magazine, Australian
Bridge, and other bridge
enthusiasts. The same
problems are also discussed
in the magazine, by an
international panel of
Andrew Robson, Larry Cohen,
Mike Lawrence, Bob Jones,
Frank Stewart,
Eddie Kantar, and Zia Mahmood, as well as many top
Australian players. |
|
Click
here to submit
answers for October |
|
|
|
Hand One - West deals, both vul, Matchpoints.
You are South. |
|
|
|
Call |
Award |
%
Experts |
%
Readers |
4 |
100 |
50 |
19 |
Dbl |
90 |
31 |
26 |
3 |
70 |
19 |
48 |
4 |
40 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
10 |
0 |
1 |
Other |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
Welcome back, belatedly, to the
midwinter edition of the Bidding
Forum. That means, unbelievably,
that by the time you read this,
I will have been in Australia
for six years. Where have they
gone? |
 |
Problem 1 is an uncomfortable
situation (maybe that's why it's called
a Problem): we've got almost enough to
be happy forcing to game, but not quite,
especially when we don't know what sort
of a fit we've got. At IMPs we'd just
bid game, but at Matchpoints maybe it's
best to invite? Alternatively, there's a
middle ground: we can double, though
that certainly doesn't show a sixth
spade. Let's hear first from those who
opt to go low:
Damo Nair: 3 . A bit cautious at MPs
Alex Kemeny (with Daniel Braun,
Robert Black and Tania Black, similarly): 3 . Good 6
card majors bear repeating.
Peter Robinson: 3 . My initial
optimism has gradually subsided through
4 , then 4 to 4 , and now I'm wondering
whether I should just double (see Law of
Total Tricks). A minor game on repeated
trump leads looks problematic. Spades
look vulnerable to a force, and if
partner has wastage in hearts, 3 isn't
even an underbid. Partner is in a better
position to judge whether his spade and
heart holdings are worth 4 or perhaps
3NT.
David Matthews: 3 . Game interest
allowing partner to evaluate his hand in
support of Spades.
Rainer Herrmann: 3 . not forcing, but
certainly encouraging.
Michael Burt: 3 . Partner looks to be
a minimum and game is probably not on
but it might be if partner knows that I
am more than a minimum with long spades.
I'm not certain 3 is going off but 3
should have a good chance of making.
Conny Wahlgren: 3 . So partner can
bid 3NT when it's right :)
Tim Trahair: 3 . We have the majority
of the HCP and we need to show partner our
strength. If N has two spades, 4 should be on
as we have at least 4 spade winners.
Bridge Baron: 3 . My hand is at the
top of the range for this bid;
nevertheless, it's within the range.
Show the sixth spade and give partner a
chance to decide among 3NT, 4 , or
chickening out in 3 .
Kees Schaafsma: 3 . 18 total tricks.
10 tricks are more likely for our side
than theirs, alas there's no way to find
that out and pard is not barred from
bidding 4 .
These panellists all (seem to)
intend 3 as invitational. However, bear
in mind that it's just a minimum bid of
a suit that we've already shown. On the
expert panel, Sartaj Hans pointed out
that 3 isn't invitational. Sometimes we
just want to play there with, for
example, QJ10xxx-x-Kxxx-xx. With that in
mind, can we be convinced that it's wise
to go high instead?
Jacco Hop: 4 . Bid what I think I can
make - even opposite a small doubleton
in spades we might still have a good
chance
Ian McCance: 4 . Good texture, hoping
not to lose control
Michael Smart: 4 . I'm not going to
risk trying to land on a dime by being
passed out in 3 , since this should have
a good play opposite any minimum with a
doubleton.
John R Mayne: 4 . Let's pick off both
strain and level without more partner
cooperation, because anything that
involves partner will misstate strength
or shape.
Peter Nuoristo: 4 . not much room to
investigate, bid what I hope is playable
Jack Lai: 4 . Partner at most 3 card
Hearts, Spade should have some cards. 4
should be near
Martyn Rew: 4 . Partner has to good
for dropping at least a couple of losers
here
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4 . restraining
myself from a slam try. but opposite
some minimums 6 is possible
However, if we insist on forcing
to game, we don't have to start with a
4 bid. A minority view was that we
should bid 4 - let's hear the
rationale:
Anne Paul: 4 . 7 loser hand forcing
to 4 or 5 clubs gives partner a choice
Emil Battista: 4 . Normally I would
bid 3 in a trice, but I have promised
Roger Yandle I would consider my bids a
few milliseconds more. Not stopping
short of game - rightly or wrongly
While I sympathize with the
sentiment (forcing to game with
uncertainty about strain), I'm not sure
that 4 is the way to do it. Three
experts considered 4 , but thought that
partner wouldn't bid 4 when it was
right often enough. And why should he?
With no space below game, it's a punt.
We could have as few as four spades, so
with a hand like KQ-QJx-xx-KQJxxx, he
may just bid the 'safe' 5 .
If we're not doing that maybe we
should consider Double:
Rex Fox: Dbl. Doesn't look like pard
is strong or got spade support. Double
is more for penalties.
Dan Baker: Dbl. Extra values, can
handle anything partner bids (and my
defensive values won't disappoint if he
passes). Will pass 3NT or bid 4 over
anything else.
I'm with Dan. I don't have many
specific rules around this, but given
that 1) it's only my second turn to act;
2) we're still well below game in either
of our suits; and 3) they've found a
fit, it seems that double should be
takeout. (I'd also play double as
takeout if RHO had bid 4 ). Before we
proceed, let's hear from some of those
who rejected it:
Griff Ware: 3 . Double could be the
winner, but partner will gamble a pass
on a bunch of hands where it turns out
we belonged in spades.
Duncan Roe: 3 . I'm sure I'd bid this
at the table. Dbl has some attraction,
but doesn't convey my spade strength to
partner
Nigel Guthrie: 3 . Over a double,
partner might bid a minor, so 3 seems
enough
Ron Landgraff: 3 . Dbl leads to
Clubs, Ugh! Or Diamonds, double Ugh! 4
is not unreasonable, but watch out for
pards wasted Heart values
It may (or may not) lead to clubs,
but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Partner will bid 3 on all hands with
three and some hands with two; and if he
has fewer than two, he must have club
length. Putting all of that together, if
Partner bids clubs, we're in at least an
8-card fit.
Roger Yandle: Dbl. the lure of +200
might be my undoing here if pard respond
4 !
Wayne Somerville: 3 . It's close to
being a game force, but the possibility
of partner being 1345 (if you don't open
1 with that) or 1336 is off-putting
I'm not sure why Wayne is worried
about proceedings when partner is 1336:
with that, we have a 9-card fit. I
suspect that Wayne would have agreed
with double if anyone had suggested it
to him, as it solves all of these
problems. One final point is that if
partner bids clubs, that's not the end
of the auction: we can still bid 4 to
suggest a contract. With a 1345, he'll
(reluctantly) pass 4 ; with 1336, he'll
correct to 5 . Let's hear the comments
of those who actually did double:
Deana Wilson: Dbl. 3 has made it
difficult. South has tolerance for every
suit and 3 isn't forcing.
Zbych Bednarek: Dbl. 3 would be an
underbid
Brian Lawless: Dbl. We ought to be
able to find a good resting place in
Spades or Clubs. Too good for 3 as that
sounds to be competing only for the part
score
Hans van Vooren: Dbl. Leaving open
most options.
Julian Foster: Dbl. Seems the most
flexible option. I wonder if my 1
showed 5 the first time (X being 4)?
The more that I look at this, the
more I think of Goldilocks: 4 it too
high, 3 is too low, but Double is just
right. However, as always, I've been
outvoted.
The full deal (from the NSWBA team
selection event, which Fraser won by
43 VPs):
|
KQ
J10
KJ105
KJ1083
|
862
98762
A92
94
|
|
43
AKQ43
876
Q76
|
|
AJ10975
5
Q43
A52
|
|
|
|
In the 7-table
final, four pairs played in 4 , two in
3 and one in 5 . |
|
Hand Two - South deals, nil vul, Matchpoints.
You are South. |
|
West |
North |
East |
South |
|
|
|
pass |
pass |
1 |
1NT |
pass |
pass |
3 |
pass |
? |
|
|
Call |
Award |
% Experts |
% Readers |
4 |
100 |
44 |
18 |
Pass |
90 |
25 |
29 |
3 |
80 |
19 |
14 |
4 |
60 |
13 |
2 |
3NT |
20 |
0 |
26 |
3 |
10 |
0 |
8 |
5 |
10 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
First things
first: what has partner shown? He
has Double, 2 , 2 , 2NT and 3 also at
his disposal. There was disappointingly
little comment from the expert panel
about what each of those bids shows.
However, given that most experts were
happy to make non-forcing below-game
bids, it seems that they were expecting
partner to double with a strong hand,
even if he holds extreme shape - and
they were unanimous that he has that, as
he could bid 2 with 5-5. The consensus
was therefore that it should be at least
6-5. Even with that much agreement
though, there was a wide range of
answers, from Pass to 4 . However, all
of them moved towards (or stayed in) a
black suit. Nobody, however, raised the
possibility that he might have 5 spades
and 6 clubs. I like bidding my long suit
first, but the world is moving towards
bidding 5-card majors first.
Our readers had different ideas from the
panel's: a third bid 3 or 3NT. Not many
of those who did gave us their projected
hand for partner; those who did thought
that 5-5 was an acceptable shape. So
there's a disconnect between the
different expectations.
However, the expert panel did all
whereas a quarter of our panellists bid
3NT - so let's hear from the optimists
first, starting with a few for our
complaints department:
Wayne Somerville: 3NT. I would have
doubled 1NT at MPs, now I suspect we
have close to 9 top tricks.
Michael Smart: 3NT. Why the pessimism
over 1NT!? Partner has shown great
playing strength, but my kings aren't
going to help much in a black suit
contract.
Bridge Baron: 3NT. Why on earth did I
pass last round? Do I not like defending
doubled 1NT contracts when I knew, even
before partner's 3 bid, that our
partnership had at least the majority of
the strength in the deal? Anyway, even
though partner didn't double and thus
should have a hand that's at least
fairly unbalanced, we don't seem to have
found a fit yet, so as it happens, off
to 3NT we go. With a freak, partner can
correct to 4 or 5 as appropriate.
Of the expert panel, only Zia
suggested the possibility of doubling
1NT.
David Matthews: 3NT. I cannot pass
but 5 Clubs is too far, so the only
likely making game is 3NT. With all the
points marked we should be able to bring
this home.
Duncan Roe: 3NT. My clubs might give
us 2 more tricks in a club contract, but
the oppos might take 3 top ticks.
Partner is showing 5-5 spades / clubs,
so only 3 red cards. An overtrick in 3NT
will beat 5 , so go for 3NT
Ron Landgraff: 3NT. Nine easier than
11. Five clubs may fail with east having
at least one spade stop.
Daniel Braun: 3NT. unsure here,
Matchpoints is swinging me towards this
bid
3NT is a better Matchpoints spot
than 5 only if each contract makes an
overtrick, which seems unlikely. There
was one taker for 5
...
Ron Landgraff: 5 . I can't believe I
did this at Matchpoints! But East's NT
does not bode well for Spades. And where
are the Hearts? With 26-27 combined
points, we need to be in game. Would 4
be forcing?
No, it wouldn't. Ron's obviously
expecting a different hand from what
others are expecting; but even opposite
the 18-count that Ron's playing partner
for, 4 should probably be only
invitational. However, given partner's
extreme shape, 5 seems more likely to
make than 3NT, and if it goes off it may
well go less off, as the opponents can
run only so many red-suit tricks before
we can ruff in.
A few panellists started to
reconstruct North's hand, but slightly
different expectations led to very
different bids:
Robert Black: 3 . Not certain we have
a game. In 3NT, for example, I would not
fancy a heart lead.
Dan Baker: 3 . Lack of a transfer by
West suggests that partner's shape is
5-2-1-5, with hearts splitting 4-4. Even
so, with a heart lead I need running
clubs and S AK (or help in hearts or the
A) to make 3NT. Honors in partner's
short suits aren't too useful. Will try
for 140 instead of 130; I'd pass at
IMPs.
Roger Yandle: 3NT. it looks like pard
has got a heart fragment since W hasn't
spoken so hopefully it's something
useful. Even if it's not then with
hearts 4-4 3NT stands a good chance.
Although others didn't elaborate
on partner's expected shape, they seem
to be thinking along the same lines as
Roger. As noted above, there seems to be
a difference in expectations about what
3 shows. If Hearts are 4-4, partner
must be 5305. this means that unless
both black suits are solid, they'll take
at least three hearts, the diamond Ace
and a black suit trick unless both suits
are solid. However with (for example)
AKQxx-xxx-void-AKQxx, wouldn't partner
have doubled 1NT? And if partner has
that much, what is left for the 1NT bid?
So if not 3NT, maybe another bid
that the experts overlooked:
John R Mayne: 3 . 3 must show a
cooperative punt with diamond values.
Given that, it's got to be right.
Passers should be executed.
[That's my Dad
you're talking about, John - FR].
Brian Lawless: 3 . I want to double
3 to show a good hand but I don't think
that is allowed even in Australia. [That's
surprising respect for the rules for
someone called Lawless. I'll change your
answer to Double, Brian, and give you
101 points for it].
4 is an under-bid as is 3 . Let's show
some values using a new suit as forcing.
I will raise 3 to 4 . If pard bids 3 ,
3NT is an option
Anne Paul: 3 . Just showing a stopper
on the way to 3NT
Julian Foster: 3 . Sounds like
partner has a lot of black cards so 3NT
(my 1st instinct) is probably too
dangerous on a (likely) lead. Hope
this is stopper showing so partner can
bid 3NT if he does stop Hs. Otherwise
heading for 5 . I can't have a weak hand
with long s or I'd have bid 2 the 1st
time. But I can't have much more than I
have got or I'd have doubled the 1st
time.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3 . suggesting 3NT (I
cannot have the long diamonds as I would
have bid them before), but 5 may be
safer; but this is mp. will raise 3 to
4.
Tim Trahair: 3 . We have the majority
of the HCP and N has reversed. 3 shows
him we have strength in s and
reasonable HCP enabling him to go to 3NT
with a good stopper or to try 4th suit
forcing if not.
These panellists were thinking
along similar lines to the 3NT bidders,
but realised that we may need partner's
co-operation. Taking the slow road to
3NT won't make that contract any better,
but at least it gives partner a chance
to pull to 4 or 4 when it's
right. However, it doesn't give partner
information about black suit length
(better clubs but definite spade
tolerance, opposite the expected 6-card
suit) that may be crucial for deciding
between 4 and 5 , so even if we're not
bidding 3NT, we are only slightly better
placed than those who bid it directly.
That's also assuming that partner
is on the same wavelength about the
meaning of 3 . If he had bid 2 , 2 by
us would clearly be non-forcing with
long diamonds. Does showing a
distributional hand commit us to playing
in opener's suit(s)? I wouldn't have
thought so. How would we bid with
x-xxxx-J109xxxx-x? Maybe we'd bid 2
over 1NT, but might be worried about
bidding on a possibly-misfitting
1-count, when partner can easily get
carried away. I doubt that many pairs
would have discussed what's a fairly
specialised auction.
Amongst the experts, fully a
quarter thought that we are already high
enough, and these readers agree:
Rex Fox: Pass. Looks like too many
losers, get a plus. Pard could have
AKxxxx x x AQJxx still game is dicey.
Our K's not much value
Rex's example hand looks to be
about normal in terms of high card
strength. But where are all the Hearts?
Surely 6-2-0-5 is more likely than
6-1-1-5 when they're not bidding that
suit.
Griff Ware: Pass. Sounds like
doubling 1NT was a winner here. Now the
question is: can we make game? 5 is
very doubtful given we have no points
in partner's suits and no aces. If
partner is 6-5 we might be making
4 , but again that's a stretch. I expect
a heart lead against 3NT to set up
enough defensive tricks for the
opponents, and any black cards they have
are sitting over partner. So I think the
likelihood of making game is low, and
this is MP.
Martyn Rew: Pass. East's spade
stoppers over partner makes spades and
NT look unattractive places to play.
Emil Battista: Pass. I am treating my
RHO with respect. Some 1NT overcallers I
would treat with disdain
Phil Hocking: Pass. Easts bid shows
15-18 HCP and I assume a spade stopper
so may have either the A and/or K in
spades. That leaves at best 22-25 our
way. Partner has at best 18HCP. Sounds
like 9-10 tricks in clubs or 8-9 in
spades. Show suit preference.
Peter Paton: Pass. Can't see myself
being of any help.
The alliterative Peter, and others
in this group, are all correct, but
no one other than Griff noted that we're
playing Matchpoints here. Obviously +110
in 3 when the room is -50 in 3 will be
huge, as will +130 vs +110. But going
+110 or +130 in 3 won't be worth
much if the room is making +140 for
playing in 3 . Most of the 3 bidders
believe that the second scenario is more
likely than the first - can they
convince the rest of us?
Alex Kemeny: 3 . Partner should have
6-4 or 6-5. With 5-5 black suits it is
much better to open 1 then bid spades
twice, or rebid 2 when holding
reversing values.
It was once very popular to open
1 with 5-5 in the blacks, and the idea
has a lot of merit, but that is now much
less popular than once it was.
Michael Burt: 3 . 3 should make
fairly easily and 3NT is likely to go
off. 4 may be difficult to make with
the 1NT overcall. We'll probably just
get home in 3 and it should score
better than 3 .
Peter Robinson: 3 . In view of East's
bid, North must be partly acting on
shape, but the more shape he has, the
more likely that my hand is a
pseudo-Yarborough. Since East is likely
to have at least 3 defensive tricks (S:
Kx plus 2 aces), the eleven-trick
contract is out. If East also has :
Qxx, 9 tricks may be the limit, but I
can probably just afford 3 ,since my K
holds up the force.
Nigel Guthrie: 3 .
Partner can have
KQxxxx-xx-void-AKJxx
[On that layout,
4 makes if we can hold our Spade losers
to two and the Q drops. That sounds
like a poor spot, but given the
opponents' silence, suits are likely to
be breaking well so it should actually
have a good play - FR].
Good support for partner. 5 seems far
away. With better spades, you might have
raised on the previous round. Your red
honours have limited value. If partner
has his bids then South is probably
seeing red.
Ian McCance: 3 . Only because it's
MPs. My red cards should protect partner
from being tapped out
Tania Black (with HA de Jong
similarly): 3 . Probably as many tricks
in Spades as in Clubs.
It's good that these panellists
recognised that 3 is just preference,
and doesn't show desire to go any
higher. Some, however, did want to
encourage partner - after all, we have
an 8-count and four-card support,
neither of which we've shown
Jack Lai: 4 . 5 might not be good as
both red suit hold Ks instead of As. Try
invite and wait for partner decision
Kees Schaafsma: 4 . Constructive. 3
is not forcing (2NT is), 2 already
shows a 5-5 in my book so I can't afford
to pass.
Peter Nuoristo: 4 . or 5 clubs, but
my guess is that p will not stop below 5
clubs
Rainer Herrmann: 4 . Partner could
have AKxxxx-xx-void-KQJxx or more and
game is quite reasonable.
Jacco Hop: 4 . We have enough to
justify bidding one more. Partner might
have Something like AJ9xxx-xx-void-KQJxx
and with this type of hand he didn't
want them to come in cheap.
Conny Wahlgren: 4 . Partner is not
kidding. Both kings could be extremely
valuable and East is on lead. Pass is
for cowards.
Finally, a few wanted to bid game
directly
Damo Nair: 4 . Another MP bid. The 8
HCP appear wasted. Still, 4 should have
a reasonable chance. N did see my pass
over 1NT.
This did get some support from the
experts, and does seem like our most
likely game. But if partner's spades are
any good, he should try 4 over 4 , so
it seems that 4 covers off both
options. 4 won the Expert vote, and
although it was third in the readers'
poll, its proponents put forward a
better case than any other group did. |
|
Hand Three - West deals, EW vul, Matchpoints. You are South. |
|
West |
North |
East |
South |
pass |
1 |
pass |
1 |
pass |
2NT * |
pass |
? |
2NT is 18-19 balanced.
|
|
Call |
Award |
% Experts |
% Readers |
3 |
100 |
44 |
14 |
3 |
85 |
38 |
30 |
4 |
80 |
13 |
11 |
4 |
90 |
6 |
20 |
4 |
70 |
0 |
18 |
4NT |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3NT |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
70 |
0 |
2 |
Other |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
|
We definitely
have a fit in Hearts, and probably have
one in Spades (unless partner is the
sort to try 2NT on a hand like
x-AQJxx-AKQ-Qxxx). Even a singleton
Spade honour would be enough. So we need
to set Hearts, set Spades or give the
choice to partner. We also need to work
out the right level: slam might be
excellent (Axx-AQxxx-AKQ-xx) or game
might be dreadful (Jx-AQJ10x-Jxx-AKQ),
though obviously nobody would be
pessimistic enough to stop short of game
- this is the Bidding Forum, not the
Master Solvers Club. We'll
start with the optimists:
Zbych Bednarek: 4 . Autosplinter (on
Spades), looking for a Diamond cue bid.
The hand is worth slam try if partner
has nothing in clubs - a hand like Ax,
AQ, A.
Anne Paul: 4 . Shows shortage in
clubs gives partner a choice to go on to
6 or 7 in suit of his choice
Phil Hocking: 4 . Splinter bid
expecting partner may have to devalue
club honours and stopping in 4 .
Hmmm ... three possibilities for
what suit we're playing. Luckily, we
have an expert panel to help us resolve
the meaning, so I checked what the two
4 bidders had to say about the bid's
meaning:
Matthew Thomson: 4 . In AB standard
3 is forcing so 4 must be a "self
splinter" for spades.
Patrick Huang: 4 . Splinter for
Hearts, I hope.
No help, there, then. What do the
other 4 bidders say?
Martyn Rew: 4 . The double fit in the
majors makes 6 look very gettable. 7
is there with the right 18-19 points.
When I said optimists, I meant it.
Tania Black: 4 . Gerber. I feel
lucky!
Well ... you're lucky to be
getting the same score for 4 as those
who agreed with the expert panellists
that it's a splinter.
However, most panellists, both
readers and experts, set their sights
lower. Let's see what they have to say:
Deana Wilson: 3 . Game force check
back partner shows spade support or
suits up the line. 6 of a major could be
on.
This isn't a standard treatment,
at least not where I come from. Over a
1NT rebid, 2 is invitational and 2 is
game forcing. But it's a lot easier just
playing that any bid over 2NT is game
forcing , so 3 is the only checkback
that you need. That means incidentally,
that if you want to make a forcing bid
to show heart support or extra spade
length, 3M is fine. This should assuage
the fears of ...
Ian McCance: 4 . 3 if it's forcing,
but maybe 4 ok
Brian Lawless: 4 . My preferred style
is that both 3 and 3 are forcing but
my partner (Australian experience) does
not agree! Less danger of a bad trump
break spoiling things in S so 4 it has
to be. Could be missing a good slam
because of a system defect.
Jacco Hop: 4 . The notes don't
specify the follow up and 3 could be
Non forcing? With such a strong spade
suit I think it is pretty likely that
will gain us a trick more than playing
in hearts lets say partner has xx AJxxx
AQx AKx And that is a hand with xx in
spades change the jack of hearts for the
Jack of spades and we are close to 6
spades and likely only 4 .
Damo Nair: 3 . I'm assuming 3 is
100% forcing.
John R Mayne: 3 . I plan to later
correct to spades, but I want an
unequivocally forcing bid
[John's a
demanding guy - keep reading. FR]
. Is 3 forcing in AB standard?
Some, however, were happy to sign
off anyway, such as:
Barbara Hunter: 4 . Not sure if this
is right
Conny Wahlgren: 4 . Hmm?
Ron Landgraff: 4 . Can I bid 4 and
then "oops!" and correct to 4 ? Would
Papa the Greek get away with it? [Sarcasm
doesn't always come through online, but
Ron's tongue is firmly in his cheek -
FR]
This group is far from certain
about strain, so maybe they should start
a level lower.
Alex Kemeny: 4 . Close between this
and 4 . I am weaker so it may play
better in S but against that, 4 may
protect partner from a diamond lead.
Gary Lane: 4 . If 3 is check back
asking for 3 card spade support I want
to change my bid to 3 .
Tim Trahair: 4 . It looks as if we
have an 8 card fit in both majors but
probably not enough for slam. 4 is
tempting although it is better if the
strong hand plays the contract.
Bridge Baron: 4 . Would have made a
limit raise to 3 last round. As it is,
my ruffing value in clubs versus
partner's probable lack of side-suit
shortness points to game in hearts
rather than spades.
David Matthews: 4 . Lots of thoughts
on this one. Do I support partner or
rebid my Spades? Is 3 pades forcing on
this action? If so that would be my bid.
I certainly do not want partner to pass
a 3 Spade bid so I must bid 4 Hearts or
4 Spades. If partner was 1534 or 1543
then he would jump rebid in the minor.
Its looking more than likely that he is
2533. So the best contract is likely to
be in my 6 card suit.
Rex Fox: 4 . Seems the sensible
contract. Bit wimpish to bid anything
less
Duncan Roe: 4 . Was thinking of 3NT
(this is Matchpoints after all) but
oppos might manage to run a long unbid
suit. The trump contract guards against
that
Roger Yandle: 4 . with a double fit
slam might be on but at MPs I'm settling
for game.
One panellist used a home-grown
Stayman variant to find the best spot.
While it seems like a good method, it's
not part of AB Standard.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3 . methods? In my
regular partnership I would now bid 3
establishing a game force for the majors
(3 -answer = 3-5 majors; 3NT denies 3
and good ). then a 4 -cuebid (short as
I promise at least 8 cards in the
majors) would invite partner to judge
whether we belong in slam.
However, the majority of experts,
and about half the readers, opted for
the slow road - some for 3 , some for 3
and one more subtle approach ...
Griff Ware: 3 . We have a decent slam
if partner has A, AQ and A, and
that's only 14 HCP. Although the chance
of slam it not great, it will be much
higher if partner has no wastage. So I
intend to lie about my shape a little in
order to emphasise my shortage: I'm
bidding 3 and then, if partner does not
bid 3NT, I'll bid 4 on the next round,
showing a mild slam try with 5-3-4-1 or
similar. At MPs, it will be
an interesting problem if partner bids
3NT over 3 , since 3NT might now be the
highest scoring spot … but it will be a
guess.
As for the others, all chose 3 or
3 although. Disappointingly, few of the
3 bidders gave reasons as to their
choice of suit, but these two were
exceptions ...
Wayne Somerville: 3 . Partner will
know about our spade length from our
failure to raise the first time.
Julian Foster: 3 . Seems obvious.
This surely must be forcing. If I was so
weak as to only take 1 bid I'd have
raised s the 1st time.
I'm not sure that I agree with
Wayne and Julian's reasoning. Sometimes,
we just need partner to know where our
length is so that he can place the
contract later.
Nigel Guthrie: 3 . Ax AJxxx KJx AQx
Difficult bid because spades is likely
to be the better strain
[So why not bid
3 ? - FR].
Hans van Vooren: 3 . Forcing, in my
book. No reason to bid like this with a
weak hand. Now partner knows about the
fit and the second source of tricks and
can cooperate intelligently in a slam
try.
Daniel Braun: 3 . Help a brother out.
That was our youth contingent,
just in case you missed it.
Peter Robinson: 3 . I can see how
some would regard spades as the best
trump suit, but we know the KQ are
working in any contract, so I'll
encourage a little cooperation. 3 is
forcing, of course.
Michael Smart: 3 . If I bid 3 and
partner bids 3NT, 4 may then be taken
as a simple correction without slam
interest...whereas 3 immediately
implies slam aspirations (since 4
immediately would be weaker). Note that
the spade suit isn't necessarily lost:
if partner cues A en route to slam, I
can correct to 6 .
Jack Lai: 3 . See whether partner
could cue bid and decide whether to go
to slam
Robert Black: 3 . We have a double
fit and a game forcing auction, so I go
slowly.
Michael Burt: 3 . We should score
more tricks in hearts than in no trumps
and at Matchpoints that is better. The
delayed rise in hearts indicates a
better than minimum hand and so we
should at least end up in game. Slam is
a possibility although it is probably
not on. The 3 bid keeps options open.
The 3 bidders didn't all give a
reason, such as ...
HA de Jong (and Pravin Nahar
similarly): 3 . Forcing after 2NT
Emil Battista: 3 . Let's see what
response this elicits.
Kees Schaafsma: 3 . Setting hearts
because of the singleton club seems
illusive.
Rainer Herrmann: 3 . Bid where you
live. If North raises you are done If
North bids 3NT you can show describe
your hand well with 4 And if North
cue-bids you can show your crucial king
of hearts without going beyond game.
Dan Baker: 3 . Entries to use the
long spades could be problematic in
hearts (Jx AQJxx AQx Axx with a club
lead), so I pick spades. Slam or even
grand could be on if partner has
something like Axx AQxxx Ax Axx.
Ron Landgraff: 3 . Even opposite a
doubleton, Spades may play better. I
fear the Spades may set up in Hearts,
but can he get to them? If pard has
Spades we are off to the races!
Although fewer readers bid 3 ,
they seem to have given more
consideration to strain than the 3
bidders. Dan's concerns above echoed
those of the expert panel, who thought
that the weaker hand's long suit should
be trumps.
The full deal is on page 13 of our
April magazine. -- BC
|
|
Hand Four - West deals, nil vul, IMPs. You are South. |
|
|
|
Call |
Award |
% Experts |
% Readers |
3NT |
100 |
75 |
74 |
3 |
60 |
13 |
11 |
2 |
50 |
6 |
3 |
2NT |
20 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
70 |
0 |
3 |
4NT |
20 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
20 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
20 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
This problem
misfired a little, as a vast majority of
both readers and experts opted for the
obvious 3NT. One of the readers made an
optimistic slam try:
Barbara Hunter: 4NT. Let's see if
partner has 3 Aces.
A few of the 3NT bidders noted
that three Aces may not be enough to
make slam, given our lack of tricks, and
the fact that partner is unlikely to
have any more, given that he could rebid
only 2 .
Everyone else jumped, but most
jumped to 3NT. The outliers were ...
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4 . If partner
doesn't cue hearts I stop in 5 . But I
cannot disregard the slam-chances
opposite the minimum-opener with three
aces and 6+ diamonds. 3 as art GF would
help here.
Michael Smart: 4 . Please cue (1st or
2nd, hopefully). Irrespective of cue
style, partner will always proceed to
slam holding 3 bullets.
Wayne Somerville: 4 . This is
somewhat dependent on agreements in the
consequent auction. If I bid 4 , we can
never get to 4NT when it's right (xx Ax
Axxxxx QJx), but we rate to be fine
anyway. 4 will pretty much ensure we
get to 6 when partner has 3 aces and
some form of heart control once we start
cuebidding.
... and ...
Duncan Roe: 5 . Partner has bid
diamonds twice missing KQJ. He figures
to have a whole lot of them, so the
diamond game is the obvious choice.
Surely it makes more sense to look
at our own hand rather than project
partner's? 4333 argues for a 3NT bid.
There's not much to choose between the
two: although the chances of slam are
slim, it could make, so 4 would be
better; however, bidding slowly my help
the defence to lead a club through the
King, for example.
However, while most acknowledged
that slam could make, they thought that
the chances were remote enough to just
sign off, and thought that 4333 argued
for a 3NT bid.
Daniel Braun: 3NT. partner needs 3
aces for slam. he can't also have a
king. so the best possible hand is
something like AJ-Ax-Axxxxxx-xx. No hand
with 6 diamonds has a good slam.
Our resident Australian
representative wasn't slightly confident
that slam would be no play ...
Griff Ware: 3NT. Giving up the slam
when partner holds 3 Aces and the K: in
that situation partner probably should
have done more (perhaps opening
1NT off-shape). Otherwise, the chance of
slam usually requires a singleton heart,
and it's all too hard without some
artificial gadgetry to find that out -
also partner's unlikely to cooperate
with any tries holding empty diamonds.
The others angled for 3NT, or bid
it directly. First, let's hear quickly
from the minority. Unfortunately, none
of the 2 bidders commented, so we'll
start with those who bid 3 - some
angling for 3NT and some for 5 or 6 :
Damo Nair: 3 . 3NT looks a bit
unilateral. Keeping it open, 5 could be
right. Or even 4 on a 4-3 fit.
Phil Hocking: 3 . A good fit in
diamonds with likely shortages but not 4
aces or 3 aces and a king. a 2 bid is
too weak. Does 4NT finding 2 aces have
us over-bidding? 3 at least forcing for
one round.
Julian Foster: 3 . Downside of this
it is implies 5 but if partner bids 3
(or if he bids 3NT) I can make a try
with 4 . If he does something else then
we can head towards 5 or 6 (which is
cold opposite as little as Axx x A10xxxx
AQx, hence I think I'm too good to just
bid 3NT over 2 )
John R Mayne: 3 . Dreadful. We belong
in something between 3N and 7
inclusive. I want 4NT natural available,
because I want to bid that. I don't
think it is. Blergh.
[No, not this
one. Keep reading. FR]
Brian Lawless: 3 . Forcing but not
promising 5 spades. Several possible
outcomes here.
Dan Baker: 3 . I need to know if
partner has a heart honor. If he does,
he'll bid 3NT here and I can ask for
aces. If he doesn't, 3NT is probably
right, although the perfect hand with a
singleton heart (AJx x Axxxxx Axx) makes
6 .
Kees Schaafsma: 3 . Now pard can bid
any hand and I can cope with any sequel.
Hope springs eternally.
Conny Wahlgren: 3 . or 3 NT, or 4 ,
or 3 if its forcing or 4 NT if partner
has 3 aces or....
However, most noted the honours in
every suit and the fact that we may make
3NT on brute strength, and eschewed
subtlety for the obvious bid. This makes
sense to me, as 3 seems to suggest
Heart weakness - and there's no reason
to think that Clubs, rather than Hearts,
will be the problem. A quick survey of
the 3NT bidders' rationales:
Alex Kemeny: 3NT. Especially at
Matchpoints
[it's actually
imps - FR]
6 seems too remote
Michael Burt: 3NT. Good points but
bad shape. My partner is a minimum and
slam is probably not there. Settle for
game.
Peter Robinson: 3NT. I don't get it.
If I'm forced to play a system where a
one-over-one may show 17+ points, surely
the system tells me what to do with a
balanced 17-count. If not, I'm sanguine
about 3NT. The real problem arises when
the balanced 17-count contains a bare
suit that could be facing a singleton.
It's not that common to pick up
17-counts, and we can fudge those
anyway, so the system deals with hands
that we might otherwise struggle to bid.
Jacco Hop: 3NT. I would like to bid
2NT Forcing to ask for x-ton however
that is not standard so not sure if I
can find out if he has AJx x Axxxx Axx
or something like Jxx Axx Axxxxx J where
3NT is not cold and 5 is.
Tim Trahair: 3NT. Possibly there is a
slam in Diamonds on, but if so, how to
find it? North is not showing much more
than an opening hand and 6 + s. If NT
is where we should be, then seems better
to be played by the S hand.
We could look, but that would go
past 3NT - and a couple of panellists
lamented our lack of system ...
Tania Black: 3NT. If we had minorwood
[i.e., 4
of the agreed minor is Roman Key Card -
FR] I
might have tried 4 , as 5 will not lose
many IMP if 3NT makes an overtrick or
two.
David Matthews: 3NT. Some soft points
here so I will just bid game rather than
chase an unlikely slam. Unfortunately
using Minor Suit Key Card will take us
past the likely best game of 3NT.
The rest were just not tempted:
Nigel Guthrie (with Robert Black, Ron
Landgraff, Hans van Vooren, Emil
Battista and Martyn Rew similarly): 3NT.
With no aces, 3N should be the limit of
our ambition.
Roger Yandle: 3NT. my hand looks
better than it is (no aces, lots of Qs &
Js) and I can't see any way to a
sensible diamond slam if its on, so I'm
settling for 3NT.
Rainer Herrmann: 3NT. I am not
tempted with this rubbish.
Rex Fox: 3NT. Not liking it that
much, but cannot find enough excuses for
anything less
Ian McCance: 3NT. painted into a
corner but shape discourages
Last word goes to the computer:
Bridge Baron: 3NT. Wins a simulation
over 6NT easily, +457 to -172.5.
The full deal:
|
AJ9
6
A108752
A75
|
652
K10953
93
864
|
|
743
A872
64
QJ103
|
|
KQ108
QJ4
KQJ
K92
|
|
|
|
We can make
6 and 6 (which may have been biddable
if North had raised the spades. At the
table only two pairs bid slam, and one
of those was 6NT (making). |
|
Hand Five - North deals, both vul, Matchpoints. You are South. |
|
|
|
Call |
Award |
% Experts |
% Readers |
4 |
100 |
69 |
30 |
3NT |
95 |
19 |
19 |
3 |
80 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
70 |
6 |
15 |
4NT |
0 |
0 |
16 |
6NT |
0 |
0 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
Another problem
that misfired somewhat - but only on the
experts' panel. Although 4 was a clear
majority for that panel, less than a
third of readers made the bid. (I
disagree with Fraser's term "misfired".
My first goal in choosing problems is to
find hands where the experts and readers
don't agree -- these are the hands that
require the most attention. -- BC)
As ever, the first problem is to work
out who has shown what. Although 2
isn't game forcing, it's at least
invitational. Partner's voluntary
3-level bid shows extras, which
therefore commits us to game (a similar
auction is, uncontested, 1 -2 -2 ). So
we don't need to worry about 4 or 3
being passed out.
Also, what shape does partner have?
Not all panellists expressed a view; the
experts who did thought 5-5 likely, but
some of the readers opined that 5-4
would be enough. First, let's look at
the pessimistic group ...
Michael Burt: 3NT. Fantastic hand and
partner has points and shape but west
almost certainly has Ace and Queen of
clubs sitting behind my hand. Given
north and west's bidding there are
likely to be bad breaks in diamonds and
possibly spades and hearts. Slam is may
well not be a great proposition. 3NT has
a good chance of making and the lead
will be coming round to me. In the very
unlikely event east has Ace spades, west
still has to find that lead. 3NT could
well outscore heart and spade contracts.
Julian Foster: 3NT. Feels like
partner has shape here (with only 54xx
there's a chance he'd X). So he may not
be that strong and we don't have an
obvious fit. Hence I'll go conservative.
If s run then we probably want to play
6NT from my side. 4 would find that out
- if partner raises then you can try
6NT. Trouble is if he can't raise you
can't get back to playing 4NT from your
hand and are likely to end in 4M with
the lead coming through your s - which
will be bad at Matchpoints.
Rainer Herrmann: 3NT. Hamman's rule
Ian McCance: 3NT. Hardest of all in a
difficult set. If partner has anything
useful in diamonds I've missed a slam. I
don't think we should play in a major
with KJ exposed.
Nigel Guthrie: 3NT. But is 4
forcing? and what does 4 mean?
Roger Yandle: 3NT. slam could well be
on in lots of different strains but the
pre-empt has jammed us for space so I'm
bidding what I think will make.
Wayne Somerville: 3NT. Very
pessimistic, but I feel we need to be
playing this to protect the lead, and 4
is gambling too much on us finding a fit
there.
There was a minority who wanted to
sign off in another game:
Tania Black: 5 . I can probably stand
a Club lead. And if Diamonds are
7-2-2-2, like my shape, it looks to
make!
With a good portion of the panel
moving slamwards, Tania's obviously not
feeling so lucky any more ...
Anne Paul: 4 . not sure what else to
do with 2 losers in clubs but 5 losers
so have to be in game. Alternative bid
3NT and hope diamonds break
I get that 4 or 5 will sometimes
be the right spot, but why must we
commit to that now? 3 and 4 are both
forcing, and let partner help decide on
both correct strain and correct level. I
have similar concerns about the 3NT bid:
it could well be right, but signing off
when we don't know what level or strain
is right doesn't seem right to me. As
such, a majority of readers opted for
bids with more flexibility - and,
as always on strong hands, there were a
few takers for both 4NT and 4 :
Tim Trahair: 4NT. N has reversed and
we have 18HCP, so slam should be on
somewhere. In a recent BF, moderator was
doubtful about using 5 Exclusion
Blackwood because there had been no suit
agreement and N might not know how to
respond. This comment puzzled me as I
would expect an expert pair to have
worked out how to respond to a slam
enquiry when there has been no suit
agreement. Usually I base the KC enquiry
on the last bid suit but others make it
simply an A ask. If the best home is NT
it may be better if played by S to
protect the king - unless N turns up
with the club ace!
This is scary - someone treating
me as a reference. In that case, I'll
have to start watching what I say. Yes,
I did say that (and stand by it), and
yes, a strong partnership should know
what all of its bids mean. But Bidding
Forum is about what you'd do with a
basic system and good partner, not what
you'd like your ideal system to be.
Emil Battista: 4NT. Again, let's see
what response this elicits before we
commit our side to an un-making slam.
Martyn Rew: 4NT. Diamond slam should
be on here. Any key cards shown will not
include hearts. Safer played by South
with a club lead expected.
Bridge Baron: 4NT. If partner has no
keycards, headed to 5 ; if one, headed
to 6NT; if two, headed to 7NT regardless
of the heart queen and the spade king.
Phil Hocking: 4NT. Partner shows a
strong 2 suiter. At best 13 HCP in
hearts and spades and West hopefully has
ace queen in clubs so partner may have
queen (jack) in diamonds. Two other
entries to cash all the diamonds so 6NT
sounds possible.
Barbara Hunter: 4NT. Planning to be
in 6NT
As on many other deals, we need to
know a lot more than how many Aces
partner has. Even if he has one, the
right contract could be anything from 4
to 6NT. So maybe, with so much ambiguity
as to strain, 4NT shouldn't be Blackwood
at all.
Griff Ware: 4NT. This should be
quantitative: I can bid 3 (forcing) to
agree S, 4 to agree , and 4 to show
more diamonds. The quant 4NT
is certainly not the most descriptive
bid available, and could get us to a bad
spot a bunch of the time. But it's MPs,
and 4NT is the only bid that keeps NT in
the picture while also making a slam
try.
As I said, I like the sentiment
and I think you can make a strong case
that that's how 4NT should be played -
I'm just not sure that that's how 4NT is
played, at least by the majority of
experts.
We had one panellist who took an
even slower approach to making a
quantitative bid:
Zbych Bednarek: 4 . Partner has
5-5-(2-1). With short clubs he should
bid 5 over 4 , after which I'll bid
slam. With short Diamonds he should bid
4 or 4 over 4 ; after that 4NT from me
should be to play (Matchpoints
scoring!!!)
Some eschewed the subtle approach
entirely and just bid what they thought
they could make.
Alex Kemeny: 6NT. Assuming W has A,
Q then there are only 4 HCP or less
missing. There are lots of ways we can
run 12 tricks especially on A lead,
(west not wanting to concede an over
trick).
HA de Jong: 6NT. Very tough, but
expect pard to have something like
AQJxxx,QJxxx,x,x.or similar. The 3
intervention stopped us from a proper
dialogue.
This seems optimistic to me. It's
likely that Hearts will run, but
Diamonds and Spades are much less
likely, and once they've knocked our K,
we're going to need 12 fast tricks to
make slam. However, I admit that I
prefer it to the plan of bidding 4NT and
then 6NT: Partner's a heavy favourite to
hold the A; once he shows a key card,
we're bidding slam anyway, and if we bid
it directly it may make the defence more
difficult. However ... will 6NT make at
all? There's a lot of bidding going on,
so partner is likely to have a shapely
hand.
It seems that 4 , whatever it
shows, always gets a few takers on
slammish hands, and this deal was no
exception. Let's see what the proponents
say about it - both the meaning and the
rationale behind bidding it.
Peter Robinson: 4 . Again, I'd prefer
to show this rock-crusher on the first
round, but 4 now is OK. If partner
shows diamond support, 6NT is a good
punt – what could partner have for his
free bid except great spades? If he
persists with the majors, the
anti-positional clubs and lack of
running suits will be a wet blanket.
Can't see 4 here as forcing. What else
can I do with a moderate hand that can't
stand the majors?
Dan Baker: 4 . Give partner room to
tell me something. Would love to hear 4
from partner with 5-5-2-1, honor
doubleton. May be important for me to
declare to avoid a club lead through.
Kees Schaafsma: 4 . Maybe I'll hear
4 . Nice set of problems.
Ron Landgraff: 4 . This will torture
partner, but I need more information.
4 ,4 ,5 and 6 are all possible. Even
NT is still possible. If he reads 4 as
a first round control, he may (perhaps
justifiably) look for a new partner.
So it seems that these panellists
all intend it as a general force. 4 got
only one vote from the experts, which
was on the assumption that it's a
general force. Two others, Klinger and
Kokish, mentioned it, but believe that
it would be a slam try agreeing Hearts,
which probably explains the lack of
official support.
A small minority opted to show
false preference ...
Robert Black: 3 . Another game
forcing auction, surely, but in what?
Spades Hearts Diamonds or NT are still
possible.
Rex Fox: 3 . Cannot see a great
future, get a plus if that's at all
possible
This bid is growing on me. Showing
preference can often get us to the best
fit (6-2, or even sometimes 5-2),
especially as the Spade game is a level
lower, and partner's likely to have a
singleton Diamond. However, the bid also
has its flaws: it wrongsides the Clubs,
and greatly reduces our chances of
reaching the most likely slam, namely
6 . On, then, to the expert panel's
preferred bid:
Jacco Hop: 4 . 7card suits can be
rebid.
Damo Nair: 4 . Even at MPs I cannot
bring myself to bid 3NT. Don't need much
from N for a slam.
David Matthews: 4 . I am interested
in slam and this is Minor Suit Key Card
in my system. Playing the hand also
protects my King of Clubs. So long as
partner has the required Key Cards we
should be safe for 6NT at least. The
worst outcome would be having to play in
5 Diamonds when 3NT is good for at least
11 tricks.
Michael Smart: 4 . If 2/1 wasn't GF,
then partner's free bid of 3 committed
us to game. That allows me to bid a
forcing 4 . 5 next round.
Duncan Roe: 4 . Slam could be on, but
we haven't agreed a suit yet. Show a
strong hand with diamonds
Daniel Braun: 4 . slammmm
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4 . this should be
forcing, 4m in this sequence to play is
too small a target to aim for. I'm
trying to find 6 . Risky if partner has
(very) short diamonds. Alternative is
the heart fit if partner now bids 4
that is probably a better contract
Brian Lawless: 4 . Why aren't we
playing strong jump shifts? That would
prevent this problem arising. Partner
must realise that I have a very strong
single suited hand. I will bid 5 over
both 4 and 4
Maybe this would have been better
as a two-part problem, because, as on
the expert panel, there was a wide range
of views about what to bid next: some
were happy to sign off in game; others
were driving to slam, and some were
looking to invite and leave the decision
to partner.
And that's us for
another month. Next time you read this,
the days will be warmer, the nights
longer. If you happen to be playing in
the ANC, come up and say hi. I'll leave
you with the thoughts of a hard man to
please:
John R Mayne: 4 . I want to
right-side this, and I want partner to
have diamond support. And I want a pony.
A nice pony, not one of those angry
biting ponies. Sorry, drifted off. Good
set of problems this month!
John, I give out two things:
ponies and strident criticism.
Unfortunately, I'm all out of ponies.
The full deal:
|
AKQJ97
109642
2
3
|
65
Q7
QJ
AQ98754
|
|
1042
J853
654
1062
|
|
83
AK
AK109873
KJ
|
|
|
|
The correct
Matchpoint spot is 3NT or 4NT by North.
Half the field bid 6NT, making on the
lucky layout.
Thanks
for being a part of our
forum. The questions for the
October issue are already online,
here.
While you're here, click on the
Home link at the top of this page and check out our new-look
web site. |
|
|
Top scores for
June |
1 | Brad Johnston NZL | 500 | 2 | Jacco Hop NED | 490 | 3 | David Graham NSW | 475 | 4 | Tom Estenson USA | 475 | 5 | Kajsa Fröjd SWE | 475 | 6 | Hans Van Vooren NED | 475 | 7 | Geof Brod USA | 475 | 8 | Sid Ismail RSA | 475 | 9 | Leigh Blizzard Tas | 470 | 10 | Peter Nuoristo SWE | 470 | 11 | Pravin Nahar NSW | 470 | 12 | Sonny Schultz | 470 | 13 | Tony Treloar Qld | 470 | 14 | Rainer Herrmann GER | 465 | 15 | Pär Ol-måtrs | 465 | 16 | Ian Mccance Vic | 465 | 17 | Alpay Ari | 465 | 18 | Zbych Bednarek POL | 460 | 20 | Fredrik Jarlvik SWE | 455 | 21 | Rex Fox Vic | 450 | 22 | Nigel Kearney NZL | 450 | 23 | Pat O'Connor NSW | 450 | 24 | Manuel Paulo POR | 450 | 25 | Rick Lu NSW | 445 | 26 | Gary Lane NSW | 440 | 27 | Dominic Connolly NSW | 440 | 28 | Nigel Guthrie GBR | 430 | 29 | John Newman NSW | 430 | 30 | Michael Burt ACT | 430 | 31 | Peter Tarlinton NSW | 425 | 32 | Andrew Macalister GBR | 425 | 33 | Alexander Cook NSW | 420 | 34 | Bjarne Andersen DEN | 415 | 35 | Trish Whitton | 415 | 36 | Robert Black SA | 415 | 37 | Niek Van Vucht ACT | 415 | 38 | Charles Scholl USA | 410 | 39 | Dean Pokorny | 410 | 40 | David Kalnins NSW | 410 | 41 | Bruce Ballard NZL | 410 | 42 | Gary Hyett GBR | 405 | 43 | Peter Robinson Qld | 405 | 44 | Kees Schaafsma NED | 400 | 45 | Dan Baker USA | 400 | 46 | Jim Greer GBR | 395 | 47 | Roger Yandle NSW | 395 | 48 | Malcolm Ewashkiw CAN | 385 | 49 | Alan Jones Qld | 385 | 50 | Jack Lai | 385 | 51 | Peter Jeffery NSW | 380 | 52 | Kay O'connor NSW | 380 | 53 | Toby Weinstein USA | 380 | 54 | Ian Patterson Qld | 380 | 55 | David Matthews WA | 380 | 56 | Henri De Jong Vic | 380 | 57 | Fi Nadir CAN | 380 | 58 | Daniel Braun | 375 | 59 | Rick Giles USA | 375 | 60 | Michael Smart ACT | 375 | 61 | Denis Upsall Vic | 375 | 62 | Damo Nair USA | 375 | 63 |
Barry Teeger | 375 | 64 | Martyn Rew NZL | 370 | 65 | Sam Arber Vic | 370 | 66 | Leigh Matheson NSW | 370 | 67 | Denis Haynes ACT | 365 | 68 | Mark Laforge | 360 | 70 | Alan Boyce Qld | 360 | 71 | John R Mayne USA | 355 | 72 | David Johnson | 355 | 73 | Arthur Porter SA | 355 |
|
|
|
|
|
Leading scores for 2015 |
1 | Geof Brod USA | 1425 | 2 | Ian Mccance Vic | 1395 | 3 | Jacco Hop NED | 1390 | 4 | Kajsa Fröjd SWE | 1385 | 5 | Roger Yandle NSW | 1355 | 6 | Fredrik Jarlvik SWE | 1355 | 7 | David Matthews WA | 1330 | 8 | Peter Nuoristo SWE | 1330 | 9 | Andrew Macalister GBR | 1325 | 10 | David Kalnins NSW | 1320 | 11 | Gary Lane NSW | 1320 | 12 | Tom Estenson USA | 1305 | 13 | Tony Treloar Qld | 1290 | 14 | Dean Pokorny | 1280 | 15 | Rainer Herrmann GER | 1275 | 16 | Damo Nair USA | 1275 | 17 | Peter Jeffery NSW | 1270 | 18 | Henri De Jong Vic | 1270 | 19 | Peter Robinson Qld | 1262 | 20 | Bastiaan Korner NED | 1260 | 21 | Nigel Guthrie GBR | 1260 | 22 | John Newman NSW | 1250 | 23 | Zbych Bednarek POL | 1250 | 24 | Pravin Nahar NSW | 1240 | 25 | Malcolm Ewashkiw CAN | 1235 | 26 | Charles Scholl USA | 1230 | 27 | Michael Burt ACT | 1230 | 28 | Jack Lai | 1225 | 29 | David Woulds GBR | 1225 | 30 | Peter Stride Qld | 1220 | 31 | Brad Johnston NZL | 1220 | 32 | Gary Hyett GBR | 1215 | 33 | Kay O'connor NSW | 1200 | 34 | Dominic Connolly NSW | 1200 | 35 | Hans Van Vooren NED | 1195 | 36 | Kees Schaafsma NED | 1180 | 37 | Leigh Blizzard Tas | 1180 | 38 | Robert Black SA | 1175 | 39 | Mark Jappe SA | 1175 | 40 | John R Mayne USA | 1175 | 41 | Griff Ware ACT | 1150 | 42 | Michael Smart ACT | 1145 | 43 | Pat O'connor NSW | 1140 | 44 | Wayne Somerville IRL | 1130 | 45 | Bjarne Andersen DEN | 1125 | 46 | Ig Nieuwenhuis NED | 1120 | 47 | Alan Jones Qld | 1115 | 48 | Brian Lawless GBR | 1100 | 49 | Bruce Ballard NZL | 1097 | 50 | Ian Patterson Qld | 1090 | 51 | Martyn Rew NZL | 1090 | 52 | Peter Havlicek Vic | 1080 | 53 | Toby Weinstein USA | 1080 | 54 | Sam Arber Vic | 1080 | 55 | Niek Van Vucht ACT | 1065 | 56 | Tom Moss NSW | 1055 | 57 | Murray Perrin Qld | 1050 | 58 | Leigh Matheson NSW | 1050 | 59 | Alpay Ari | 1045 | 60 | Alex Kemeny NSW | 1040 | 61 | Dan Baker USA | 1040 | 62 | Arthur Porter SA | 1035 | 63 | Tania Black SA | 1030 | 64 | Leon Slonim Vic | 1030 | 65 | Conny Wahlgren SWE | 1030 | 66 | Alan Boyce Qld | 1030 | 67 | Derek Pocock WA | 1030 | 68 | Jim Greer GBR | 1025 | 69 | Ron Landgraff USA | 1020 | 70 | Mark Laforge | 1017 | 71 | David Graham NSW | 1005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you to all the
readers and visitors
who entered this month's
forum. Click here
to try your luck at the next set of problems, to be answered in the
October issue of Australian Bridge. And don't forget to check
out your June issue to see what the experts said
about this month's hands. |
|
|